Slashdot Mirror


EFL 1.0 Is Finally Released

Lisandro writes "The Enlightenment crew has finally released the first version of the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries, which the E17 desktop is built on." Adds reader mu22le: "Among the Enlightenment libraries hitting version 1.0 are Eina (core data structure), Eet (data encode/decode and storage), Evas (canvas and scenegraph rendering ), Ecore (core mainloop, display abstraction and utility), Embryo (small virtual machine and compiler), Edie (GUI layout and animation), E_Dbus, Efreet (handling of freedesktop.org standards), and Eeze (udev wrapping)." Getting it right can take a while -- a preview of the EFL libraries first appeared in 2004. Enlightenment has never stopped looking cool.

25 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. It might be getting some serious use, MAYBE by sznupi · · Score: 2

    Some time ago there were hints & speculations that Samsung bada mobile OS might use some Enlightenment libraries. Considering how future Samsung Star-like handsets might shift to bada from "feature phone" flavor of Touchwiz UI (it's already quite close), how primarily such handsets represent recent touchscreen boom (except for very few atypical but highly visible and vocal places) - millions of people might perhaps carry at all times part of Enlightenment with them quite soon...

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:It might be getting some serious use, MAYBE by malloc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some time ago there were hints & speculations that Samsung bada mobile OS might use some Enlightenment libraries.

      Considering that Samsung hired Carsten Haitzler, the main figure behind E17, that wouldn't be too far fetched.

      --
      ___________________ I want to be free()!
    2. Re:It might be getting some serious use, MAYBE by raster · · Score: 2

      I'm still here (@ Samsung). What comes out and when is not something I can say, but Enlightenment and EFL are in heavy use here at Samsung R&D. Samsung Mobile platform R&D isn't a small place either. EFL actually does what very little else can do and generally faster or much faster, with more flexibility and smaller footprint. And it improves day by day. Expect a stream of releases and new libraries, and so on over time. Priority is in getting things right for long-term longevity, not short-term publicity. So wait and see what appears.

      --
      --------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
  2. What could i do with this? by Saija · · Score: 2

    As a linux enthusiast, user and eye-candy lover what could i do with this? honest question, is this the core to build enlightment?

    --
    Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)
    1. Re:What could i do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Enlightenment is a window manager. The EFL are the libraries that the E team wrote in order to write E17 (Enlightenment 0.17), which was a complete rewrite from E16. If you are a developer you can use the libraries to write your own programs. The summary contains an overview of what does what (Except that it is Edje, not edie). If you are just an end user, then it is just libraries that are in E17's core, and thus it depends on them. For you the release would mean that E17 has less problems than before, and is closer itself to release.

    2. Re:What could i do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the basis of e17, yes. And e17 is a wicked-slick desktop environment; works quite well on netbooks, tablets, etc. Fully DPI-independent, tons of eye-candy, and it's still snappy on a dual-core 800MHz Turion (my old HP TX2000, locked on the lowest clock speed for maximum battery life, was where I first met it.)

      However, it's a general-purpose set of libraries usable for any app. For example, on my N900 (running more-or-less stock Maemo, with not a trace of Enlightenment involved) I use BlueMaemo (a bluetooth HID implementation allowing my phone to serve as a bluetooth keyboard & mouse to any machine) which is built on EFL, and there's also the highly-regarded (though not to my taste, so I've no experience) media player/library/etc. Canola for Maemo (and I think some other platforms as well. There's another app or two out there, but at present it's main use is Enlightenment.

  3. v1.0 is not "the first version" by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Informative

    E17, which depends on these libraries, has been out for...how many years now? It's in wide use, and even has a specialized distro or two based on it. These may be v1.0 libraries, but that by no means indicates that they're "the first version". That's as silly a claim as the notion that v1.9 should be followed by v2.0 rather than by v1.10. The v1.0 appellation suggests that this is the first feature complete release, not the first version!

    1. Re:v1.0 is not "the first version" by Ant+P. · · Score: 2

      So is the E17 desktop "officially" released now, or what?

    2. Re:v1.0 is not "the first version" by Theolojin · · Score: 3, Informative

      So is the E17 desktop "officially" released now, or what?

      No.

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    3. Re:v1.0 is not "the first version" by Lisandro · · Score: 2

      In fact, this would be the first stable release of the EFL libraries. I've been following the development of Enna, and the main branch would regularly break due to changes on the EFL API.

  4. Just thumbing... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

    Just thumbing through these, this framework looks a lot like GObject... Why are there literally 5 or 6 different frameworks in Linux, each with their own container classes, marshaling, runloop, event handling, and string libraries again? It'd make sense if they were all for different languages, used vastly different semantics, etc. and then only barely, but these all have bindings for dozens of languages and all gab with the client in essentially the same way. It's weird.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    1. Re:Just thumbing... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      Really? I mean, on a Mac you use Cocoa, all vendors use Cocoa -- they don't have to, some people rope STL into the fray, but that's because of language issues with legacy code. Why would you write a new one of these libraries, when half a dozen people have already written the same add-functions-to-C-to-bring-it-up-to-parity-with-Python libraries?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:Just thumbing... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why are there literally 5 or 6 different frameworks in Linux, each with their own container classes, marshaling, runloop, event handling, and string libraries again?

      Because 5 or 6 different groups of people thought it would be fun to write their own desktop frameworks.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Just thumbing... by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      I mean, on a Mac you use Cocoa

      Well, except for the people who use, e.g., E17 and/or the EFL on Mac. This is a cross-platform library and desktop, not something specific to Linux, so the original question ("why does Linux have...") makes no sense.

      Ignoring that huge quibble, though, the answer is: because Linux is not trying to be a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather an available-in-many-sizes-to-fit-your-needs solution, which is something that a lot of us greatly prefer.

  5. Enlightenment's utility by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In retrospect, I've got to admire the dedication and self-control demonstrated by the E developers.

    Back when E17 was started, it was a bloated (if awesome) project. I got sick and tired of waiting for it to finish, and pretty much soured on it when they started changing things drastically, making components (like efm - the file manager component of E17 at the time) discontinued. Granted, that's partially to be expected, but it was in development for years at that time - and reasonably stable despite.

    Flash forward to now: it's a very, very lightweight window manager (compared to many others, at least) with a fairly rich featureset. It's been used recently on the "ePC" (2 years ago?) and IIRC it's been used on phones. The libraries are featureful and there is quite a lot of functionality exposed in the interfaces for the size of everything. The windowing toolkits are fast, and the result on my screen is likewise fast (and smooth) - even without acceleration. The libraries themselves are basically like the fltk2 toolkit, in many ways - but significantly more 'polished'.

    It may have taken 10 years to 'get right' (or close to it) but the end result is, frankly, quite impressive.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:Enlightenment's utility by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 2

      The real question is: Did they slim it down, or did everything else exceed E17's bloat?

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    2. Re:Enlightenment's utility by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It may have taken 10 years to 'get right' (or close to it) but the end result is, frankly, quite impressive.

      Did it take 10 years to "get it right", or did it merely take 10 years for the competition to blast by in terms of bloat and overhead, making E17 look better simply because it hasn't gotten worse anywhere nearly as quickly? :)

      This is an honest question, as I haven't followed E development at all. I do basically agree with the conclusion--E17 once seemed huge, bloated and slow, and now it seems small, effective and fast. Clearly the devs were doing something right along the way, even if it was simply not adding new kitchen sinks every year or two.

    3. Re:Enlightenment's utility by Svartalf · · Score: 2

      I think it's a bit of both, in truth. They've refined things as best as I can tell, so there's at least slightly less apparent overhead than before- and the others blew past them ages ago and didn't stop adding stuff. Some things we needed...many we didn't.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    4. Re:Enlightenment's utility by cp.tar · · Score: 2

      The way I remember it... no, it wasn’t like that.
      E16 was a feature-rich, but pretty bloated window manager. E17, when I first tried it some seven years ago, was very lean: I’d put it on a computer too underpowered for either Windows XP or the then-current version of either KDE or Gnome. All of them positively dragged.
      E17 was not very stable, but it was small and fast, and its image viewer (AFAICT also discontinued) ran circles around GQview. Zooming huge photos in or out was instantaneous in E; GQview would take up to 10 seconds.

      E17 has been a project where the developers insisted on doing things right, which I find very commendable. Everything that had proved to be sub-par, they’ve scrapped, replaced, redesigned. Being in a fairly small niche at least allows you to ignore dealing with deadlines and ship it when it’s done.

      Today I have E17 running on my father’s ancient laptop. My stepmother can even play Zynga crap, the most resource-wasting Flash games I’ve ever seen, on a 1 GHz processor with 256 MB RAM. They are slow, but they actually load. Which they did not do under either Win XP or Kubuntu on the very same machine. E17 itself uses up around 30 MB RAM, no matter what kind of effects you load it up with. And it’s fast. Oh, it’s fast.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  6. I agree, but... by novar21 · · Score: 2

    It's these version numbers that are confusing people. And everyone does these version numbers differently. So should we replace version numbers with dates? That would bring up other problems like should it be yyyy-mm-dd or mm-dd-yyyy or dd-mm-yyyy? Another way of doing this would be to have a feature complete indicator followed by a patch number. So you could have FC1.675. But others may want to use different structures or designators. We should all find a standard we can agree on mostly, and use that. But that can be like hurding cats.

  7. Re:Review? Screenshots? by Cylix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since they are graphical libraries a series of screen shots detailing what they are capable of wouldn't be too bad.

    I think it's a fair question to ask if you want to dedicate some time into using them.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  8. Quick question: by lennier1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they want to promote a product that's essential to the UI of a desktop/handheld OS then why is their official site pretty much devoid of full-size images to give visitors a first impression?

  9. Duke Nuke 'Em Forever, this...what's next? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will the HURD finally be completed? Mass hysteria!

    1. Re:Duke Nuke 'Em Forever, this...what's next? by badran · · Score: 2

      Feast your eyes:

      http://www.archhurd.org/

  10. Well okay by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am a former openmoko user. I developed openmoko apps using EFL as well. There is a lot of stuff missing from EFL. A lot of stuff which is not documented. There are many situations where you just have to try something and if it doesn't work, try something else. A good component set will have documentation telling you what components can be embedded in other components. In many cased with EFL you have to go to the code or write a test to find out. Interoperability between components seems to have been developed on an "as needed" basis. A lot of the error messages written to stdout are unprofessionally written and uninformative. Its easy to generate a crash. I just can't see this going anywhere.